by Derek Parfit – then why would we assume them to be correct on (e.g.) whether it is right or wrong to kill a person?
As my friend Dave remarks, Science has comprehensively confounded “common-sense” in all empirical matters. Our traditional ethical intuitions, when wrapped in secular guise, are less susceptible to experimental challenge. It would be a piece of singular good fortune if the least testable aspects of common-sense folk-wisdom just happened to be the ones that could most be relied on. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence that we are taught our “intuitions” of right and wrong, via the process of socialization and (Pavlovian) conditioning. That being the case, we should give up the claim to special insight on their behalf. Our intuitions on intrinsic value are perhaps more reliable than those on right and wrong, since we do not need to be taught to value happiness or disvalue suffering – rather the valuation of them is intrinsic to those experiences. If, on the other hand, one believes that one’s intuitions always correctly discriminate right from wrong, then one need not take
